Re: Some coverage for DROP OWNED BY with pg_default_acl

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Some coverage for DROP OWNED BY with pg_default_acl
Date: 2021-01-20 04:35:06
Message-ID: YAey+iwgqWFnYyMJ@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 05:49:03PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Heh, interesting case. Added coverage is good, so +1.

Thanks. I read through it again and applied the test.

> Since the role regress_priv_user2 is "private" to the privileges.sql
> script, there's no danger of a concurrent test getting the added lines
> in trouble AFAICS.

It seems to me that it could lead to some trouble if a test running in
parallel expects a set of ACLs with no extra noise, as this stuff adds
data to the catalogs for all objects created while the default
permissions are visible. Perhaps that's an over-defensive position,
but it does not hurt either to be careful similarly to the test run a
couple of lines above.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2021-01-20 05:20:21 Re: Deleting older versions in unique indexes to avoid page splits
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2021-01-20 04:10:28 Re: Stronger safeguard for archive recovery not to miss data